Re: Marital Trust

As I wrote a l=ttle while ago, I did write a long response to your last -- deeply depress=ng -- letter, but decided not to send it. I may return to that lette= later but will keep to some factual matters that ought to be cleared up.

But now I'm writing just about one point, which seem= to be the core of the problem -- a problem, which, again, I don't und=rstand. But let's put that aside, though I hope we can clear it =p soon. All of this is a painful cloud that I never would have=imagined would darken my late years.

The core iss=e seems to be the marital trust. I've explained how M and I actu=lly set it up with Eric, which seemed to us just plain common sense. =I've also explained Max's different interpretation. I've=asked you for yours, but haven't heard it. But let's put tha= aside too, and just resolve the matter, as can be done very simply -- wit= no need for lawyers to explain the fiduciary responsibility of the truste= I appointed years ago to replace me, something I never paid any attention=to before.

The simple solution is to divide the t=ust into two parts. One part will go to you, to use as you wish. =A0 One part will go to me, for me to use without any investigations of my =inancial situation and other such intrusions that I won't accept. =AO Then the trust can simply be dissolved, and it is all over.

So I suggest that we proceed this way, and end the whole matt=r -- at least, whatever it is that I understand about what is of concern t= you.

I'm glad that you find=the idea interesting and think that you might consider it, though you have=to consult lawyers first.

My own view is different. T= me the proposal I suggested seems to be a very simple way of settling thi= matter, which to me is extremely troubling. I realize that this is =ust another case of a longstanding difference in the way we approach these=problems, a difference that has been clear ever since we were discussing t=e interest on the loan from the Trust and found that we could not communic=te because I mistakenly assumed that it was a discussion among family memb=rs while your letters made it very clear and explicit that you saw it as a=legal issue to be settled among lawyers and Bainco, perhaps with a mediato= in the adversary proceeding. All matters I find it very hard to com=rehend, and to live with, but so be it.

So by all means con=ult with your lawyer, or perhaps a battery of lawyers, to make sure that y=ur interests are properly protected. I don't need any lawyer'=s advice. The matter is perfectly clear and straightforward. 5= there is no reason for me to hire a lawyer to deal with the question and =o have a lawyer contact yours and initiate a discussion in which we all pa=ticipate.

The matter is very simple. We can proceed w=thout delay if you agree to settle the issue in the simple manner that I s=ggested.

As for your proposals in your letter of March 29, =s I wrote you, the letter was so shocking that it was hard for me to bring=myself to respond, but I did, in detail, but decided not to send it. =Perhaps I should. Will think about it.

As for your pr=posals, my response was the obvious one. I'm sorry for the stres= you had to endure, but your efforts were a waste of time for reasons I ha= already fully explained before you undertook them. As I'm sure =ou recall, a few years ago, I requested tax payments from the marital trus= when my IRA was being rapidly depleted by my advisers who were distributi=g half to family and using the other half to pay management fees and taxes=for the entire estate, so that to pay Alex's medical expenses and the =xpenses for Wellfleet I had to withdraw excess funds with exorbitant taxes= all that before withdrawing even a cent to live on again with exorbitant =axes. Your response was to refuse the request unless I agreed to int=usive and insulting financial investigations -- of a kind I never consider=d when providing funds to you for something you needed. I made it cl=ar and explicit at the time that I would not submit to this procedure. =AO Since your efforts and proposals simply repeat the same procedure, they=were a waste of time.

There were some things in your letter=that were correct. You're right that despite what has happened, ='m still a "wealthy man," with income well above the median,=though lacking a pension and accumulated property, not at the level of my =eers. Furthermore, I can supplement my income by teaching large unde=graduate courses, something I'd never done and that is not that common=for people approaching 90, but something that I enjoy. And you too a=e a wealthy man, for the same reasons: the reasons are that I've worke= hard all my life, lived fairly simply (and live even

more simply today), =nd was therefore able to put aside enough money to ensure that my children=and grandchildren are very well cared for, indefinitely.

But I again suggest that we put all of this aside, and deal quick=y and simply with what appears to be the one outstanding issue: dividing t=e Marital trust and then dissolving it, all very simple, needing no lawyer=, at least on my part.

You might add that if they feel a lawyer can explain= the mutual release you have one that will sign off